Vista adoption rate ‘twice as fast’ as XP’s

Back in March, Microsoft boasted that it had already sold 20 million copies of Windows Vista, and that its new operating system was on its way to becoming the fastest-adopted version of Windows ever. As CNet reports, Microsoft says that in the following month and a half, it managed to sell nearly 20 million more copies of Vista. At the Windows Hardware Engineering Conference in Los Angeles today, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates explained, “As of last week, we’ve (sold) nearly 40 million copies.” According to Gates, sales of 40 million mean Windows Vista is being adopted “twice as fast” as Windows XP—at least for the three and a half months after launch. For reference, it took Microsoft six months to sell 32 million copies of Windows XP after the operating system came out in late October 2001.

Comments closed
    • UberGerbil
    • 13 years ago

    Actually, this is about what you’d expect. The installed base is larger today, but the hurdles to uprade are higher too (most people didn’t worry about a video card upgrade when they were considering moving to XP). There’s probably the same percentage of “early adopters” today as there was when XP shipped, and they’re the people who upgrade. But in general, upgrade sales are going to be far less significant than OEM shipments with new computers. And if you look at OEM shipments…

    XP was released late in 2001; the winter of 2001-2002 was a very slow time for PC sales. Total shipments in 2002: 132M
    §[<http://www.crm2day.com/news/crm/EpuFEFAuAlMLBYsXCR.php<]§ Total shipments in in 1Q06: 60M, which projects to an annualized 240M §[<http://www.internet-nexus.com/2007/04/q1-2007-worldwide-pc-market-share.htm<]§ So PC sales are running at about twice the rate today, a quarter after Vista's launch, as they were a quarter after XP's launch. So, knowing that, what should we expect? We'd expect Vista to be shipping at twice the rate of XP. In other words: no news here, move along. (Though, given that a lot of OEMs are offering the choice of XP or Vista, it might be marginally interesting that Vista isn't doing any worse than this). What we don't know, and what Microsoft isn't going to talk about, is how many people are returning Vista, or putting it on a shelf while they go back to XP.

    • Chrispy_
    • 13 years ago

    Vista doesn’t run the primary software that the company I work for uses.

    In actual fact, I did a test with the RC2 of Vista 32-bit and disovered that around one-third of the software my company uses has a show-stopping issue with Vista, be it network-code, license-server, permissions, or plain old incompatible exe.

    I’ll re-evaluate it at service pack 1, once the first few thousand bugs have been ironed out. I’m sure as hell NOT spending two months talking to developers and getting workarounds for the issues for a dozen different CAD/CAM packages, only to then have to roll it out each time a new bug is found. TBH, that’s what guinea-pigs are for, but I’d just rather someone else was the guinea-pig, hence the delay until SP1. Oddly, everything that worked on 2000 worked on XP, there were none of these problems in 2002


    I find it odd too – I’ve always jumped on the new versions of windows and stayed with them, but in XP I’ve found an OS that actually doesn’t need to do any more to keep me happy (for now). None of Vista’s features really entice me to upgrade. I think it’s because they’re gimmicks rather than features. That mean’s Vista’s either ahead of its time, or MS are just expanding the OS for the sake of a product they can sell. Call me a cynic, but Vista smacks of the latter.

    • somegeek
    • 13 years ago

    I’ve been using Vista for about 2 weeks.

    The big improvements for me are:

    – Firewall – Can block all outbound traffic except user-specified programs. Settings and permission rules can be saved to a file.

    – Search – It’s faster and easier.

    – Unattended Installation – Easier, xml answer file, auto partitioning.

    That’s it. Not much, but I haven’t lost anything by switching so I don’t have a reason to go back to XP. Vista is a mediocre, flawed product but so was XP. Microsoft may have some good engineers but they don’t have any good software designers.

    • herothezero
    • 13 years ago

    q[

      • derFunkenstein
      • 13 years ago

      You know, WPA is a form of DRM, and Microsoft had that one all to themselves.

        • A_Pickle
        • 13 years ago

        Not that it matters… I play HD content on my 32-bit version of Windows Vista all the time. Quite frankly, I do everything I did on XP with Vista… the hype and paranoia raised about the “dismal” situation with DRM in Vista is nothing but FUD.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 13 years ago

          don’t get me wrong; my Vista upgrade has been ordered…I just don’t think it’s fair to let MS off completely with DRM.

            • A_Pickle
            • 13 years ago

            Oh. No, it’s not. But… it’s not nearly as bad as Richard Stallman and Charlie Demerjian make it out to be. In fact, I haven’t remotely noticed it. At all.

    • lemonhead
    • 13 years ago

    I’d like to see retail vs pre-loaded sales.

    Also when I was a network jockey in 96 at a hospital we had like 1000 pc’s. We never installed MS’s latest versions, but purchased the newest licenses because they were no longer selling the old ones and the rep said that was fine.

    I remember the XP vs 98 gaming discussions. I see a lot more flak over vista problems I think. Def not as smooth, and I think people were surprised, given that Vista was announced in plenty of time for drivers and software to work correctly. I’m not blaming anybody, I think the expectations of the consumers were not met.

      • ManAtVista
      • 13 years ago

      The problem with your argument is that whatever happens in the windows world happens in the mac and linux world as well, so if people upgrade with new licenses and old software for windows, they do so for mac and linux at equal rates, assuming otherwise without proof is an obvious violation of occam’s razor. So the numbers are still relevant, same goes for every anti-‘OS statistic’ argument out there. g’day sir.

        • lemonhead
        • 13 years ago

        I wasn’t making a comparison there, Mr. Gates. I was making a comment that I don’t believe there are 40 million people actually running vista.

    • ManAtVista
    • 13 years ago

    “#29, “1. Vista was paid for, that is a sale, end of discussion.”
    actually it’s not systems sell with Vista preinstalled but how doese microsoft count it when the buyer requests an XP restore disc or when the buyer specifically trades in it’s Vista license in exchange for an XP one?

    MS counts it as a Vista sale but in reality is it?”

    Yes it is really a sale, they got money for it. The death-2-ms rebels without a clue are insuating that Vista is used by a lot less people than the numbers sold, but there is no proof and it’s highly unlikely stores would overstock by millions a product they aren’t selling and continue doing so for 4 months after its release, but their rationality waned long ago so nobody’s surprised.

    “”2. This begs the question, how is MS supposed to know you aren’t going to use Vista?”

    very simple track the licensing and exchanges they have it all on record and readily available…. as a side note I fully expect MS doese track these things.”

    Not worth tracking exchanges because they are probably too small to matter, unless you have proof this is not the case for MS or the industry as a whole.

    “it’s not about what hardware can run what it’s about what hardware at the time of release could run on what and what could shortly thereafter.

    Nforce 3 motherboards are still on retailers shelves yet they have and will not be recieving any working drivers for Vista, so let’s compare XP can run on almost anything released in the last decade…. it’s been around for 5yrs so that’s a nifty 5 year grace period for hardware….. Vista can run almost everything released in the last 2 years excluding Nforce 3’s and Nforce 2’s.”

    As I showed in the previous post, Vista runs on more time-varied hardware than XP ever did. Prove otherwise, with links, like I did.

    “as for the 2nd part XP was able to run on a CPU valued at about $10 at the time of it’s release and 384mb ram cost at the time about $65 so keep spouting your b.s.”

    Prove it with links pal, just saying it doesn’t mean squat to jack. And also prove Vista can not run on similarly priced hardware and on hardware that was relatively as old. I proved below that Vista ran on 7 year old hardware (pentium 1 ghz; and probably older), but I’m sure no one would run XP on 5 year old hardware (pentium 150) at its release. Price I don’t have figures for, but price is related to age in this market, older cpus are less expensive than newer ones, even from a relative viewpoint, a 2000 cpu in 2007 is cheaper than a 1996 cpu in 2001, this is well known to everyone in the tech community so if you disagree you’ll have to prove it with links. And I am 100% sure you made up the $10 at time of release XP cpu claim, so please provide a link ok?

    “MS is deliberately dropping support for XP, leaving XP unfixed regardless of who or when the copy of XP was purchased. IE: customer buys copy of XP just prior to Vista’s release and is now stuck with the realisation that MS is not going to fix the 4gb ram issues currently plagueing XP, that MS will not release DX10 for XP that MS is going to stop upgrading XP entirely regardless of the issues that arise aside from security issues.”

    MS is not ‘dropping support’ for XP, that is a term that is reserved to bug and security fixes, not adding features to XP is not the same as ‘dropping support’, duh. And you once again make a grand claim without a link, what issues with 4GBs does XP have and why would someone buy XP with 4GBs and not XP-64 or Vista/vista-64? How does the software work differently than advertised. Grand claim after grand claim and not one link in your post, why am I not surprised.. Why should MS backport features to XP? Like I said to someone else, do you blame apple for not backporting core and quartz to os 9? Probably not. And around we go..

    “do you understand what your talking about? Vista has some very nice features including far better multi core support that required an OS upgrade beyond WinXP…… this is a plus for Vista and is a plus based on merit…….but when MS deliberately drops support that could easily be offered they are abusing their monopoly.”

    Everything is abusing monopoly with you guys, it’s just more whining cuz you can’t accept MS won so you have to cry cheater. And how do I not know what I am saying, you just told me what I was saying, does that mean you don’t know what you’re saying either, or just me? sheesh.
    And if MS backported everything, you would say ‘why upgrade to Vista’ and if they don’t you say ‘it’s unfair abuse of monopoly’ so that MS has to lose with vista either way, you can’t be for real with this.

    “actually it’s a very expensive thing for developers to do but games already in the pipeline were already developed for DX9 what you and I will be seeing released over the next year will be hybrids as developers eventually drop support for DX9 entirely due to cost reasons.”

    I state a well known fact:

    “all upcoming dx10 games are dx9 also.”

    You reply unfounded, unlinked, unknown crap to contradict it. A contradiction is not an argument, try google ok kid?

    “Microsoft was asked why no DX10 for XP, they said it would take significant effort….. within the last month a 19 year old made headlines by partially getting DX10 features to work with WinXP in his spare time.”

    Not proven to be real, so once again post a link that proves it is. Anyone can make a statement saying they did something, but if they aren’t a well known entity they should not be trusted.

    “no actually it’s not but you don’t understand and it’s a discussion that requires a modest level of intelligence that you lack.”

    Sure, you’re too dumb to understand my reply to this statement, so I won’t make one, right, we all believe that.

    “my my someone is totally in love with themselves.”

    Linking to my site means I love myself? Well, since you want to start pop-psych, maybe you are jealous of MS because you hate yourself, and have to say others love themselves to hide this fact, seems plausable to me.

    “Linux is less popular which means it’s mainly ignored by most malicious code writers and the effort is focused on Vista.

    Vista is inherrently less secure because it’s successful, doesen’t seem fair to you?

    who gives a shit how you feel reality is Linux is more secure because it’s ignored, it may not be merit based but popularity comes at a price and MS is very popular.”

    Prove linux is more secure, security through obscurity is not security either, son, so stop pushing that argument that died back in ceasar’s time, already.

    “”What a stupid, rambling, illogical post.”

    yes your post was stupid, illogical, rambling along with childish and worthless. ”

    I doubt it, yours on the otherhand, would certainly qualify as all that and more.

      • Krogoth
      • 13 years ago

      Good points, but it is true that all of the upcoming DX10 titles will feature a DX9 render path for order hardware. Just look how long it took games to require DX8 and DX9 from the day when the API was finalized.

      It is fiscal suicide for any game developer to make a game require DX10, until the market reaches critical mass. I suspect that will be at least 2 to 3 years after of the release of DX10.

      I believe the primary beefs with Vista among enthusiast crowd is the Vista has a higher MSRP for a legit license, it isn’t as easy to pirate and Vista is designed with what is current generation of hardware and stuff of tomorrow.

      Why would anybody install Vista on a single-core, >4GB of memory and AGP rig is beyond me.

      Microsoft isn’t a monopoly as their are alternatives in the market, but the arm-chair MS complainers don’t feel that they have the time or patience to learn an new OS. Linux may be still a bit rough around the edges, but it can do practically anything you want with a bit of work.

    • SonicSilicon
    • 13 years ago

    MIDI gets yet another amputation with Vista.
    It’s pretty sad that, when I finally found out what was my problem with a specific MIDI application in XP, the only solution is going back to 98. >_> It hasn’t been high on my priority list, but it is another reason why I’m not moving to Vista, period.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 13 years ago

      CoreMIDI was one of the original deciding factors of me getting a Mac – the MIDI implementation is fantastic. I’ve switched all my projects in the last 3 years (2.5 of which were spent on the Mac – I took a few completed projects and converted them as a learning tool) to Logic Express 7 (now 7.2) and I never looked back.

    • deathBOB
    • 13 years ago

    y[

      • SGT Lindy
      • 13 years ago

      It is so funny to see this stuff. It is the SAME SHIT that happened when XP came out.

      I remember, especially gamers, bitching so much about how XP was a bloated resource hog that had no drivers and cost to much, just a new GUI….blah….blah…blah……and why should they upgrade. They said it took so long to replace 98 because ME was a failure and XP was the next ME……same shit different day with Vista.

      Some of them FREAKS held onto 98SE forever. The smart people/gamers who had moved to Windows 2000 also complained that XP used more resources and was not much of an upgrade….of course XP was really Windows 2000 SP5 to be honest with system restore and a new GUI.

      Vista will dominate……flat out dominate the market…like XP has. OS X and their hardware….is not going to gain much of anything. Linux….its a polished turd on the desktop…that has been trying for the last 5-10 years to make it. Ubuntu has come a long way….but a turd it is compared to Vista.

    • HiggsBoson
    • 13 years ago

    Um, sorry if this comes out as trolling, but I thought all this stuff about Vista selling better than XP was debunked a long time ago as mostly an artifact of the larger overall size of the computer market compared to the size of the market when XP was released.

    §[<http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070412-will-vistas-real-sales-performance-please-stand-up.html<]§

    • Fighterpilot
    • 13 years ago

    Its simple really.If you are an MS hater(obviously plenty posting here)then DO NOT buy Vista.
    Instead, restrict your self to trashing what you don’t have,don’t understand and don’t want anyway….oh wait….you are already doing that….oops
    If,on the other hand you want a cool upgrade to XP that is slick,more secure than any MS OS so far and has functionality and ease of use that makes XP look rather old and clunky then get yourself a retail copy of Vista and use it as your desktop for a few months.
    Then have someone try to take it from you for your old copy of XP….

      • zgirl
      • 13 years ago

      And some of us do have it, have used it, but still are not impressed just yet. This coming from an early XP adopter. I started using RC2 full time and never looked back.

      Yes there are people out there that cannot stand change, but I frankly don’t think vista is there yet. Sorry but that is they way I feel. I also don’t like some of the directions M$ is taking with certian parts. DRM being one of them.

      I know Windows dominates the land scap. I also know I will be using various versions of windows to come. However I am not going to blow M$ as the greatest software vendor in history. Their track record proves otherwise.

      I amazes me that people can care so much about a company that cares so little about them.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 13 years ago

    well, as is customary, I’m awaiting my Vista DVD – about 4 months after release, I ordered it. Same was true with XP…and Tiger, for that matter…

    • Furcifer
    • 13 years ago

    Minus two systems from me. I just ordered two optiplexes with winxp from Dell.

    Edit: meant as reply to #41

    • sigher
    • 13 years ago

    Adoption eh, guess because copies are abandoned 😉

    But seriously. are there any number on how often people dump vista again compared to XP?

    • albundy
    • 13 years ago

    Is that why Dell is bringing XP back to its machines? Good call.

      • Logdan
      • 13 years ago

      Only for the period in which Microsoft allows them to sell XP with their hardware. Which IIRC ends at the turn of this year.

      • Hance
      • 13 years ago

      I just ordered a new Dell Laptop with XP. XP works and works very well for what I want it to do. I wont be upgrading to vista until I am absolutely forced to.

    • Disco
    • 13 years ago

    I think it’s great that they’ve pushed a lot of Vista copies out the door. The more users, the more complaints of incompatibilities. And the faster we’ll get proper functioning drivers for our peripherals and patches for our software.

    On a somewhat related note, does anyone out there work with Adobe products in Vista? Do the current versions of Acrobat or Photoshop work in Vista? The Adobe website makes it sound like they are incompatible and require a forthcoming patch.

      • kaikara
      • 13 years ago

      I have the full version of adobe acrobat 7 installed on Vista and it works fine. I can’t say i am a heavy user but I haven’t run into any problems.

      I have only had one application that I have tried not work on Vista. That was Quickbooks 2005. I was meaning to upgrade so I went to 2007 and it worked fine.

      • SnowboardingTobi
      • 13 years ago

      CS3 versions of their apps should work in Vista now. Previous versions will vary. Consult this pdf: §[<http://www.adobe.com/support/products/pdfs/adobe_products_and_windows_vista.pdf<]§

        • Disco
        • 13 years ago

        thanks for the info.

    • herothezero
    • 13 years ago

    q[

      • bdwilcox
      • 13 years ago

      With the pablum you’re spewing, I can see where you got your username.

      • clone
      • 13 years ago

      when XP was released any system released in the previous 5 years could run on it.

      if I bought a brand new copy of XP in late 06 I could still use a 10 yr old system to run it….. while it wouldn’t be my first choice it’s about compatibility.

      Vista can’t run on every system released in the last 2 years let alone 5….. plain and simple that is wrong.

      we can blame Nvidia for Nforce issues which I agree with but MS is also to blame for not opening the door for legacy support for other hardware Nforce 2 and 3 are the most obvious because in Nforce 3’s case you can still buy the motherboards today.

      p.s. I’m not demanding MS offer legacy support to 440bx chipsets I was using the 440bx chipset as a comparison of what was runnable on XP at it’s time of release.

      products released 5 years ago simply are not runnable on Vista which was not the issue in regards to XP in which almost anything ran until the release of Service pack 2.

        • ManAtVista
        • 13 years ago

        “#37, when XP was released any system released in the previous 5 years could run on it.

        if I bought a brand new copy of XP in late 06 I could still use a 10 yr old system to run it….. while it wouldn’t be my first choice it’s about compatibility.

        Vista can’t run on every system released in the last 2 years let alone 5….. plain and simple that is wrong.

        we can blame Nvidia for Nforce issues which I agree with but MS is also to blame for not opening the door for legacy support for other hardware Nforce 2 and 3 are the most obvious because in Nforce 3’s case you can still buy the motherboards today.

        p.s. I’m not demanding MS offer legacy support to 440bx chipsets I was using the 440bx chipset as a comparison of what was runnable on XP at it’s time of release.

        products released 5 years ago simply are not runnable on Vista which was not the issue in regards to XP in which almost anything ran until the release of Service pack 2. ”

        Did you try running Vista on 5 year old hardware? Here’s a hint, you can see people running 1Ghz cpus and vista with aero, 1Ghz cpus were first released in 2000 (or 1999).

        And I highly doubt you could run XP on a 1996 computer , which was about a Pentium 150, with the same comfort that you could run Vista on a 2000 computer (Pentium 3 1ghz), 2001-1996 = 5, 2007-2000=7.
        §[<http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=205288&messageID=2131019<]§ is a user running on a 1ghz PC with Aero. Here's a link for CPU/timeframes covering 100mhz to 3ghz: §[<http://www.tomshardware.com/2003/02/17/benchmark_marathon/page17.html<]§ Obviously you pulled all this bs out of your ass just to make yourself look correct without knowing what you were talking about, a cunning plan had it not been for google. :rolleyes:

        • derFunkenstein
        • 13 years ago

        Dude…no, no, no. In 2001, 5 years is 1996. In 1996, Pentium MMX was king of the hill. It cannot run XP. Even then, Pentium4 systems and SocketA Athlon systems were the only ones to run it WELL. Very similar situation to today.

        • A_Pickle
        • 13 years ago

        Five years ago was 2002. The Pentium III had reached 1+ GHz by then, the Pentium 4 had been launched, and the Athlon XP was going strong. You’re seriously going to tell me that Windows Vista won’t run on any of these systems? I’m going to tell you that you’re nuts.

        Any of these systems could happily scale to 1 GB of memory if not 2 GB, not that that’s entirely relevant as Vista runs quite responsively even with just 512 MB of RAM.

        Windows XP “runs” on my grandfather’s 300 MHz Pentium II-powered Dell XPS D300 with 384 MB of RAM, but it runs it about as fast as a frozen turtle going uphill. Against the wind. Vista, on the other hand, would probably be quite usable with a 1 GHz PIII, 512 MB of RAM, and with a low end Radeon 9000-series card, you could even turn on Aero.

        I want to build that system just to show you naysayers how wrong you ALL are. Argh.

        • moose17145
        • 13 years ago

        Vista runs great on my machine, and it’s still using a 3.2GHz P4C on a Abit IC7-G mobo. I assure you my computer is by no means new, and it handles it just fine. If it still only had a 2.6GHz P4 and single 512mb stick of ram from when i originally built it…. then no, i doubt very much that it would run vista very well. But obviously i have upgraded since then, and it runs fine. I suppose if your into buying POS pre-built machines from best buy that barely had enough ram to begin with, and then don’t realize how cheap and easy it is to do simple upgrades like … oh idk…. add ram …. maybe spend 70 bucks on a DirectX 9 video card and install it …. then yes, you will be complaining because you don’t understand why vista will not work on your computer worth crap. But if i can make it work perfectly fine a machine built about 4 years ago, and my friends can get it to work on computers even older than mine while running Aero (sp?), then it’s not nearly as incompatible as everyone is claiming. Yes it might take a few upgrades for ram, but seriously, who cares? Linux users maybe…. but for god sakes they bitch when they see XP using 200MB of ram and say how horribly inefficient it is and blah blah blah….

    • 5150
    • 13 years ago

    Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 40% of all people know that.

    • ManAtVista
    • 13 years ago

    “I love statistics.

    OK, how many people are buying PCs these days dcompared to 5 years ago?

    I love how advertsing agencies pull stats like this out o’ their bottom. Why not state the adoption rate of the upgrade of Vista vs the adoption rate for XP upgrades.

    Adding in figures that are tied to new PC and laptop sales is just stupid. Laptops today can be bought for $500. 5 years ago, $1000+? That whole supply/demand thing. If Dell sold two laptops, one with Vista for $1000 and the exact same thing with XP for $900, the average person would buy the XP model.

    Stop looking at this metric as thoguh it’s anything more than advertising. That’s all it is. ”

    About twice as many PCs being sold, with Vista selling slightly more than twice as many copies in the same time as XP, IIRC. But you’re ignoring that we were told by hordes of open source and apple users that vista was a FAILURE and NOBODY would use it, yet it’s doing slightly better than the most popular OS ever, XP, it doesn’t compute, but then again, it rarely does with these people. And Vista sold more in 5 weeks than non-MS OS’s put together. I wonder if you would be so dismissive of the only science we have for understanding these things (statistics) if they said what you wanted to hear.

      • bdwilcox
      • 13 years ago

      The “science” of statistics can be summed up in this phrase:

      “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.”

      • kherman
      • 13 years ago

      You stated the same thing I did. The thing is that more PCs are being sold today than 5 years ago. So, of course, more copys of Vista are being sold. What don’t you get?

        • A_Pickle
        • 13 years ago

        So Microsoft’s 65% profit spike this quarter from the same quarter last year is just… inconsequential, then? It probably doesn’t have to do with the fact that they made huge upgrades to two of their strongest product lines, right?

    • kherman
    • 13 years ago

    I love statistics.

    OK, how many people are buying PCs these days dcompared to 5 years ago?

    I love how advertsing agencies pull stats like this out o’ their bottom. Why not state the adoption rate of the upgrade of Vista vs the adoption rate for XP upgrades.

    Adding in figures that are tied to new PC and laptop sales is just stupid. Laptops today can be bought for $500. 5 years ago, $1000+? That whole supply/demand thing. If Dell sold two laptops, one with Vista for $1000 and the exact same thing with XP for $900, the average person would buy the XP model.

    Stop looking at this metric as thoguh it’s anything more than advertising. That’s all it is.

    • 1970BossMsutang
    • 13 years ago

    I still consider vista to be far superior in the 64 bit area. XP x64 edition just had so many problems on my machine.After installing Vista home premium x64 on my computer i have yet to have any issue at all…all drivers took in…i have yet to have any downgrade in performance. The people who i have installed vista on there computers also seem to be extremely happy with it. I have noticed that the 32 bit versions occasional have some odd things but still seems pretty stable.

      • alex666
      • 13 years ago

      See my previous post. Interesting how we had almost exact opposite experiences with Vista 32 and 64 :).

      • wulfher
      • 13 years ago

      True i got x64 Vista too and runs just smooth, besides that Creative labs lacks new drivers even that i just bought a xfi bcs of the driver i feel bit disappointed.

      But why blame M$ the System is good and we all had the same problems 6 years ago as XP did came out. Everyone was shouting boooo! no need Win98 just fine.

      History repeats itself 🙂

    • alex666
    • 13 years ago

    I got Vista 32-bit Premium Home Edition for my new Intel C2D 6600 build (my first Intel build, having always been an AMD builder) along with an 8800 GTS 640. Without going into a lot of details, I bought Vista primarily to play and tinker with, thinking it would not be ready for prime time, and that I would mostly stick with XP. Well lo and behold, within a week Vista became the primary OS. It has been rock steady, and many older games that my 9 year-old son enjoys, like Midtown Madness 2 and Motocross Madness 2, run perfectly. And while some of my benchmark scores are a tad slower, my apps including Flight Sim X and Office XP run fine (except for Outlook). Overall, very accepting of every program I’ve thrown at it so far. I’m far from being a MS fanboy, but hey, give credit when it’s due. Once they finally tweak the UAC a bit more, it will be really great.

    The above said, I found Vista 64-bit to be not so ready for prime time.

    • indeego
    • 13 years ago

    Work? Go ahead and get Vista all you want.
    Home? I’d never pay for it, and I’m too old for the piracy crap. I think I’d even reject a machine given to me for home use with Microsoft OS’s on them.
    Supporting other people? Microsoft Operating systems always bring in the hourly g{<$$$<}g. Always have, always will.

    • herothezero
    • 13 years ago

    <sarcasm>But, but, but how is this possible? I mean, everyone is supposed to be using Linux and OSX instead! And _[

      • provoko
      • 13 years ago

      Hahaha. Masturbating in the streets!? That would have been sweet if it were ture.

        • Vrock
        • 13 years ago

        Um, no, it wouldn’t have been. Not at all.

    • Kopi
    • 13 years ago

    For those people complaining about everything M$, When was the last time you walked into a store and bought a stand alone upgrade for other operating systems like OSX? You guys should stop all these blah blah blah against microsoft. I sense all these criticisms are more about envy rather than concrete facts. The fact here is that M$ has SOLD nearly 40 million of Vistas. What i expected from you was great job M$. Now, let the bashing begin!

      • clone
      • 13 years ago

      “ENVY RATHER THAN CONCRETE FACTS”……….. aside from trying to initiate a flame war why would anyone “envy”….. what an odd assumption.

      p.s. apparently that 40 million number is the result of creative addition so your “facts” would seem in error.

        • Corrado
        • 13 years ago

        You’re right, the XP numbers were probably pure hard sales from a B&M store. You don’t think they used fuzzy math to come up with their XP numbers as well? It doesn’t matter if its ACCURATE since they are both acquired via the same formula. 20 million > 10 million.

        I recall how everyone said they were NEVER going to switch to XP either. That 2000 does EVERYTHING XP could do, but with less overhead, XP sucked, crashed, nothing worked, was unsecure… and here we are again, the same thing 5 years later. The next Windows to come out people will do the same thing… ‘OMG NEVAR SWITCHING FROM VISTA… THIS NEW WINDOWS ITS TEH DEVILSZ!11 I’M GONNA GO USE LUNIX NOW!1’. And still, none will, just like last time, and this time.

        Everyone complains about MS prices and tactics, Apple prices, and Linux complexity. None of you will ever truly be happy.

          • clone
          • 13 years ago

          “It doesn’t matter if its ACCURATE since they are both acquired via the same formula. 20 million > 10 million.

          I recall how everyone said they were NEVER going to switch to XP either.”

          I hear this completely false and stupid comment repeated over and over again whenever someone wants to defend Vista and be dismissive about it.

          the numbers are BS if I buy a system that MS knows I’m switching to XP on then they shouldn’t count it… that said I don’t care it’s a stupid number and irrelavent.

          as for the 2nd part of your comment the truth of the matter is when XP was released you had your dissenters while others were curious, you had your compatibility issues and you had your problem free users….. Vista is different.

          I know ppl using P2 450’s with 384mb of Ram running WinXP SP1 and they are happy with it…….. show me how much support is available for a 440bx chipset or an Nforce 2 chipset or hey what about an Nforce 3 chipset……. show me a computer running WinVista that has less than 512mb of ram and I’ll show you an incredibly slow computer.

          the reaction to Vista is different, Vista is being forced on the industry, their is no option to ignore Vista, Microsoft is deliberately strongarming Vista onto the market, they deliberately pulled support from XP and decided quite early on that they would not offer DX10 for XP so that games couldn’t go back.

          I’ve heard the stupid bullshit comments about how it would be to hard and that without a doubt is total and complete lie so please highlight comments by MS employees and MS reps stating otherwise as they couldn’t possibly be unbaised on the matter.

          Vista 32bit edition has DX10, DX10 is a modular piece of software had Microsoft decided it wanted to offer DX10 support to XP it would not have been impossible, Code is Code it’s not organic you compile it and it runs it doesen’t intermix unless poorly written and to be honest because of DX10’s modular design it would have been realitively easy to do compared to previous versions of DX.

          I personally don’t want Vista I will eventually switch to it or I won’t, I don’t have a personal grudge against it save that I know of no one who is currently happy with it and all have switched back to XP after trying it.

          if MS drops the price of WinVista to $75 Cdn I’ll give it a shot until then I’m seriously considering going to Linux as I don’t game all that much anymore and Linux can surf the web without alot of trouble and with less security concerns.

            • ManAtVista
            • 13 years ago

            What a stupid, rambling, illogical post.

            “the numbers are BS if I buy a system that MS knows I’m switching to XP on then they shouldn’t count it… that said I don’t care it’s a stupid number and irrelavent.”

            1. Vista was paid for, that is a sale, end of discussion.
            2. This begs the question, how is MS supposed to know you aren’t going to use Vista? You’re saying just because someone buys Vista on a machine, it’s certain XP will be installed and Vista wiped, that’s ridiculous, you make no sense at all with that. But the linux/mac fanboys go wild anyhow..

            “as for the 2nd part of your comment the truth of the matter is when XP was released you had your dissenters while others were curious, you had your compatibility issues and you had your problem free users….. Vista is different.

            I know ppl using P2 450’s with 384mb of Ram running WinXP SP1 and they are happy with it…….. show me how much support is available for a 440bx chipset or an Nforce 2 chipset or hey what about an Nforce 3 chipset……. show me a computer running WinVista that has less than 512mb of ram and I’ll show you an incredibly slow computer.”

            1. Win2k ran on less hardware than XP, so did ME. Like the OP said, we’ve heard it before, we’ll hear it again, because people just like to look like they have something smart to say so they repeat these types of things, I’ve replied to your post 100 times, same thing from different people because they can’t think on their own, but they can do a mental copy-n-paste apparently.
            2. Core 2 Duos start at $183 and 2GBs RAM starts at < $100 and MS should make new software that uses new computers, if MS released something that ran on a p2-450 / 384MBs ram you’d probably be the first one complaining it doesn’t take advantage of modern hardware, etc.
            You can’t have your cake and eat it too, but you probably could care less, you just probably do things like put MS in catch-22s with no intention of using their software no matter what.

            “the reaction to Vista is different, Vista is being forced on the industry, their is no option to ignore Vista, Microsoft is deliberately strongarming Vista onto the market, they deliberately pulled support from XP and decided quite early on that they would not offer DX10 for XP so that games couldn’t go back.”

            How is vista being promoted differently? If it didn’t have high-end vista only features, people would as I said complain it doesn’t take advantage of lowly $180 dual core computers with just $100 of ram, and all DX10 games in developement are offering dx9 paths too, so it can’t be a very taxing thing for the game developers to do, so how does making DX10 vista only lead you to conclude anything other than XP wasn’t good enough for it’s features? You don’t know squat about anything do you? You just keep repeating the loudest trolls in a recursive cycle of stupidity that never ends, apparently.

            “I’ve heard the stupid bullshit comments about how it would be to hard and that without a doubt is total and complete lie so please highlight comments by MS employees and MS reps stating otherwise as they couldn’t possibly be unbaised on the matter.”

            You’ve decided a-priori that they are lying, gee, maybe you don’t know what you’re talking about again? You bought it up, so why don’t YOU prove XP can run DX10 (and don’t bring up vapor-pay-ware that advertises this but has not been seen, from last weeks troll sites).

            “Vista 32bit edition has DX10, DX10 is a modular piece of software had Microsoft decided it wanted to offer DX10 support to XP it would not have been impossible, Code is Code it’s not organic you compile it and it runs it doesen’t intermix unless poorly written and to be honest because of DX10’s modular design it would have been realitively easy to do compared to previous versions of DX.”

            You are begging the question, has it been proven that XP can run DX10 and that it would be easy and useful to implement and why should MS care? Should they backport it to Win2K and WinME too? Every company is allowed to put NEW FEATURES in NEW PRODUCTS except MS of course, basically with software everything can be backported if you want to be obtuse, why doesn’t apple backport quartz and core to Mac OS-9? IT’S SOFTWARE IT’S NOT ORGANIC BLAH BLAH.. It’s a free country and that’s their business model and your freedom is to buy it or not, nothing else. Of course you can post illiterate, ignorant, flame bait all over the internet and watch everyone laugh at you too.

            “if MS drops the price of WinVista to $75 Cdn I’ll give it a shot until then I’m seriously considering going to Linux as I don’t game all that much anymore and Linux can surf the web without alot of trouble and with less security concerns. ”

            Do you do anything besides beg questions? Proof Linux is more secure than Vista, please. At my techblog (http://tech2games.blogspot.com/2007/05/bill-gates-vista-more-used-than-all-non.html), I posted about the number of exploits found in the first 30 days of retail release of different OS’s from a Microsoft security document, Vista had like 1, XP 20, OS X 30, a few linux versions much more. Cue red herring about ‘what about linux distro X’. If you can’t pick one OS to argue with, you can’t argue, because it’s stupid to say linux is the best because each of the 300 distros has a unique cool feature and windows doesn’t have all of them. Peace.

            • bdwilcox
            • 13 years ago

            Methinks anyone who writes this much with this much vitriol must be getting paid to do it or has a huge stake in it.

            • clone
            • 13 years ago

            “1. Vista was paid for, that is a sale, end of discussion.”
            actually it’s not systems sell with Vista preinstalled but how doese microsoft count it when the buyer requests an XP restore disc or when the buyer specifically trades in it’s Vista license in exchange for an XP one?

            MS counts it as a Vista sale but in reality is it?

            “2. This begs the question, how is MS supposed to know you aren’t going to use Vista?”

            very simple track the licensing and exchanges they have it all on record and readily available…. as a side note I fully expect MS doese track these things.

            “1. Win2k ran on less hardware than XP, so did ME. Like the OP said, and alot more of the same.

            2. Core 2 Duos start at $183 and 2GBs RAM starts at < $100 and alot more of the same.”

            it’s not about what hardware can run what it’s about what hardware at the time of release could run on what and what could shortly thereafter.

            Nforce 3 motherboards are still on retailers shelves yet they have and will not be recieving any working drivers for Vista, so let’s compare XP can run on almost anything released in the last decade…. it’s been around for 5yrs so that’s a nifty 5 year grace period for hardware….. Vista can run almost everything released in the last 2 years excluding Nforce 3’s and Nforce 2’s.

            as for the 2nd part XP was able to run on a CPU valued at about $10 at the time of it’s release and 384mb ram cost at the time about $65 so keep spouting your b.s.

            “How is vista being promoted differently?” MS is deliberately dropping support for XP, leaving XP unfixed regardless of who or when the copy of XP was purchased. IE: customer buys copy of XP just prior to Vista’s release and is now stuck with the realisation that MS is not going to fix the 4gb ram issues currently plagueing XP, that MS will not release DX10 for XP that MS is going to stop upgrading XP entirely regardless of the issues that arise aside from security issues.

            “If it didn’t have high-end vista only features, people would as I said complain it doesn’t take advantage of lowly $180 dual core computers”

            do you understand what your talking about? Vista has some very nice features including far better multi core support that required an OS upgrade beyond WinXP…… this is a plus for Vista and is a plus based on merit…….but when MS deliberately drops support that could easily be offered they are abusing their monopoly.

            “all DX10 games in developement are offering dx9 paths too, so it can’t be a very taxing thing for the game developers to do,”

            actually it’s a very expensive thing for developers to do but games already in the pipeline were already developed for DX9 what you and I will be seeing released over the next year will be hybrids as developers eventually drop support for DX9 entirely due to cost reasons.

            “so how does making DX10 vista only lead you to conclude anything other than XP wasn’t good enough for it’s features?”

            never once made the claim what I stated was that MS deliberately dropped support for WinXP by not releasing DX10 for XP.

            “You don’t know squat about anything do you?”

            apparently far more than you.

            “maybe you don’t know what you’re talking about again? You bought it up, so why don’t YOU prove XP can run DX10”

            Microsoft was asked why no DX10 for XP, they said it would take significant effort….. within the last month a 19 year old made headlines by partially getting DX10 features to work with WinXP in his spare time.

            not a corporate spearhead but a lone teenager got partial DX10 functionality with WinXP in his spare time and MS has openly admitted they could release a version of DX10 for WinXP by adding the extensions to the API but that it would take effort on their part.

            “It’s a free country and that’s their business model and your freedom is to buy it or not, nothing else.”

            no actually it’s not but you don’t understand and it’s a discussion that requires a modest level of intelligence that you lack.

            “Proof Linux is more secure than Vista, please. At my techblog blah blah blah”

            my my someone is totally in love with themselves.

            Linux is less popular which means it’s mainly ignored by most malicious code writers and the effort is focused on Vista.

            Vista is inherrently less secure because it’s successful, doesen’t seem fair to you?

            who gives a shit how you feel reality is Linux is more secure because it’s ignored, it may not be merit based but popularity comes at a price and MS is very popular.

            “What a stupid, rambling, illogical post.”

            yes your post was stupid, illogical, rambling along with childish and worthless.

            • Mithent
            • 13 years ago

            “the numbers are BS if I buy a system that MS knows I’m switching to XP on then they shouldn’t count it”

            How do MS know that? Did you tell them? I wouldn’t think that, on the whole, buying a Vista machine and changing the OS to XP would be expected (don’t forget, for one, that most customers would never dream of changing the OS). I can’t see any way that MS could actually judge who is using Vista on a daily basis, only the number of sales – which have overwhelmingly for both Vista and XP been with new machines. Very few people actually buy OSes from bricks & mortar stores – the average person just gets whatever’s current when they buy a new PC.

            • clone
            • 13 years ago

            track the licenses, Vista comes preinstalled which microsoft counts as a sale but companies have the option to exchange their Vista license for an XP and also to request an XP restore disc to do the changeover.

            this data is readily tracked and available.

            • SGT Lindy
            • 13 years ago

            “I know ppl using P2 450’s with 384mb of Ram running WinXP SP1 and they are happy with it…….. show me how much support is available for a 440bx chipset or an Nforce 2 chipset or hey what about an Nforce 3 chipset……. show me a computer running WinVista that has less than 512mb of ram and I’ll show you an incredibly slow computer”

            Ok genius…..flash back to when XP came out. Did it run well on your Pentium 133mhz with 64megs of RAM? Oh no it did not….so you bought a P2 450 with 256megs of RAM and later added another 128meg stick of SDRAM.

            Shit does not stand still. I just bought 2gigs of RAM for my wifes notebook….of Crucial memory no less for $108 from new egg. When XP came out…NO NOTEBOOK could take that much RAM and if it could it was $2000 just for the memory.

          • ludi
          • 13 years ago

          Difference being, XP’s two most difficult features — Windows Driver Model and System Restore — had their bugs fleshed out and mostly cleared up on the unsuspecting Windows Me buyers. Remember what happened to Windows Me?

          And XP didn’t break a wide range of applications due to fundamental revisions in the GUI and kernel.

          It’s going to be a while before Vista is ready for prime time, fudged sales numbers notwithstanding.

            • zgirl
            • 13 years ago

            You do realize that ME was a 9x kernel and XP is a 2000/NT kernel. And there are major differences between the two.

            The reason apps didn’t break was because and lot of them had be re-written to support 2000 which ran the same basic kernel as XP.

            • SGT Lindy
            • 13 years ago

            “And XP didn’t break a wide range of applications due to fundamental revisions in the GUI and kernel.”

            Because there was no fudamental changes. Windows 2000 was NT Kernal 5.0….XP was 5.1.

            If XP had tried to really fix the fact that most people logged in as a root user like Vista has with UAC then things would have really broken. Way more than with Vista because XP had a beta cycle but nothing like Vista did.

            Any applications that is broken in Vista…..that flat out cant work…no patch no ugrade is not the fault of MS. The company that makes that application does not want more money or does not have any customer service. They had ample time to prepare.

          • provoko
          • 13 years ago

          Yup, same thing all over again. XP service pack 2 is what shut everyone up. XP was still great to use before SP2.

          You just have to be patient with Vista. Stick with XP for now, wait for the compatibility patches and optimized 3rd party drivers, and then switch to Vista, most likely later this year.

          • blase
          • 13 years ago

          I’m only pondering a switch from Win2k on many of my machines because the support cycle is winding down.

      • blase
      • 13 years ago

      Several times, Mac OS X 10.3 and 10.4, BeOS, IBM OS/2 Warp and a couple of Linux distributions.

      I’ve got a copy of Vista ultimate-supremo edition sitting in the closet – it was installed for two days before I went back to XP. Granted I didn’t pay for that however, I received it and a copy of Office 2k7 Pro for taking part in a survey. It is fully legal retail software however…so I guess it counts in their sales figures even though it’s collecting dust.

        • Kopi
        • 13 years ago

        If you didn’t pay for it, whoever gave it to you did. So technically it’s still part of the sale

    • dmitriylm
    • 13 years ago

    I’ve been happy with the copy preinstalled on my Toshiba notebook. I’ve had absolutely no problems with it. If I could I would name both of my future children Vista. Ok maybe that quite that far, but you get the point……I like it.

    • clone
    • 13 years ago

    everyone I know who’s tried Vista has switched back citing incompatibility issues with alot of apps especially 3d modelling and tooling software, alot of hardware and reduced performance……. those that were forced have wound up formatting and installing WinXP in it’s place.

    a few ppl I know returned their Dell Laptops because Dell wouldn’t give them XP in Vista’s place….. then a few weeks later Dell is letting ppl choose XP over Vista so I have to believe the incident wasn’t isolated to my area alone.

    I’ve read that companies buying new computers are getting Vista by default then exchanging Vista for XP but MS still counts the sale to Vista.

    seems like nothing more than smoke and mirror Public Relations lies.

      • Corrado
      • 13 years ago

      Exactly what applications are you running that are incompatible with Vista? I’ve been using it for about 2 months now and have yet to find a single program that doesn’t run properly.

        • clone
        • 13 years ago

        Mastercam, Dellcam, PowerMill and Catia V5 and V6 in beta along with AutoCad, most are for the T&D/T&M industry which is prevailent in my area.

        everyone from the reps selling the software to the end users demanding support despise Vista, have said they aren’t offering any support for anyone using Vista and have switched back to XP along with reccomendations that anyone who plans on using the software stick to XP.

          • Corrado
          • 13 years ago

          MasterCam, SolidWorks, and AutoCAD 2007 all work for me in Vista Business…? Maybe its video drivers?

            • clone
            • 13 years ago

            possibly, a tool and mould shop bought the laptops from dell and may not have specified which version they needed.

            that said in some cases the apps wouldn’t even install, I believe the issues once encountered were deemed unacceptable and the laptops were returned….. if Vista business could have done the job it was Dell’s responsibility to provide that answer, they lost the sales.

            additionally while you mentioned a cppl of apps it wasn’t all of them.

            these criticisms are likely going to be addressed in their entirety but it takes time which is the reason ppl are sticking with a tried and true mainly troublefree OS until the bugs are sorted, it was the same with SP1 although microsofts tactics this time around are openly dubious.

          • indeego
          • 13 years ago

          Our core application that controls our document flow isn’t vista ready (it’s barely XP ready,) so we can’t migrate. It’s shell integrated, so there’s no “compatibility” fix to get it to work eitherg{<.<}g

          • SGT Lindy
          • 13 years ago

          I remember when my company was moving from Win98/2000 to XP, I was managing the department that handled the project. We had waited until SP2 of XP to make the move.

          Autocad 2005 and above worked with it……anything below that would not work. Of the 100 or so copies we had…maybe 2 of them were 2005.

          So every other application in the world practically worked with XP SP2 and if they did not they would release a patch….but Autocad wanted more money.

          Our rep was in the cofrence room when I called him on this in front of the group that used AutoCad…..he did not have much to say. Total BS gold digging is what it is…and it looks like they keep doing it.

      • kaikara
      • 13 years ago

      Anyone who is in a using a highend workstation for CAD/CAM or whatever and switches to Vista without doing any testing is a moron. I work in the industry and we won’t be switching to Vista for minimum a year or more. The same was true for XP when it came out. People have very short term memories – I remember the joys of the 2000 to XP (or worse Windows 98 to XP) and it was not any different than the XP to Vista.

      Doesn’t matter if you buy it and wipe it. You bought it – it counts as a sale. Besides It was only Dell’s consumer line that you couldn’t get without XP – nothing that you would be running workstation level apps on. All the business stuff including the workstation line was XP configurable. These people bought Vista because it was the latest and greatest and then their apps wouldn’t work. Then they blame VIsta because it is “crap” when it was their own stupidity for paying for something they couldn’t use. Is it really MS responibility to make sure UG, MaterCAM or Solidworks is working with Vista?

        • clone
        • 13 years ago

        yes and no, when Vista was first released all new computers came with Vista only.

        Dell changed this policy within a short timeframe but the policy was quite strict in the beginning until customer complaints and returns started piling up.

        I agree though anyone depending on an income would be foolish to jump on Vista straight away as has always been the case with prior MS releases.

          • SGT Lindy
          • 13 years ago

          You are FLAT out wrong about Dell. If you bought he consumer line of PC’s yes they switched to Vista….as in Demisions and Inspirons.

          If you bought the business line…..Latitudes and Optiplexes….they came with XP and some of them did not even have an option for Vista.

          There is so MUCH BULLSHIT out there on Vista its crazy.

          My company will be ready with our Vista build in July….and then we are going to roll it out to 70k+ users…it will take time but its going to happen. We tested…all of our apps first.

      • WaltC
      • 13 years ago

      Microsoft’s sin is having created a new OS for the voluntary purchase of whomever chooses to adopt it. The sin of expensive, custom-application developers, not to mention device-driver developers, is to either ignore supporting that OS or else to offer lip service in the form of shoddy application patches and drivers that only do a partial job of support. I’d wager that 98% of all current “problems” blamed on Vista stem from these two sources.

      I’ve seen it happen with every major OS release regardless of the software company, be it Microsoft, IBM, Apple–or whomever. When Windows XP was originally released the Internet was full of negative comments decrying the fact that this or that application didn’t work with it, or this or that hardware device didn’t work with it. I recall clearly, and with some amusement, Fred Langa writing a pulp-rag column at the debut of Win9x in which he more or less said that Win3.1 was “where it’s at” and being down on Microsoft for “ruining things” for “everybody”…;)

      Just like it happened with XP, a year or two from now, Vista complaints like yours simply won’t be uttered anymore…;) I’d bet on it. The application writers and the device-driver developers will “catch on”–just like they did with XP–and that will be that. I’ve noted for some years that some application developers–especially those developers writing extremely expensive (relatively), custom software for niche markets–are loathe to support anything new in terms of an OS after they “finalize” their products. They’ll squeal to the heavens about the injustice of having to support new OSes simply for the sake of their customers who are much more energetic and open than they are on the topic, and they’ll blame the OS creator as long as they possibly can. But at some point they’ll either have “shit or get off the pot,” so to speak, else they risk losing their customer base to another competitor who is gung-ho on giving people what they want instead of trying to talk them out of it.

      Really, I’ve long thought that the ideal world for application developers is a static world where nothing ever changes, an environment they can write to once and then sit back and rake in the dough in perpetuity. This is one of the cardinal reasons many software developers loathe Microsoft–all that “new and improved” code that Microsoft constantly churns out means that they cannot rest on their laurels and must keep up or perish, basically.

      I find it amusing in the extreme that a person should today refer to XP as an OS that “just works,” because, my goodness, at XP’s debut XP was characterized as anything *but* that…;) The more things change, the more they stay the same, don’t they?

    • Krogoth
    • 13 years ago

    Microsoft’s recent attempt at legal action against open source community are speaking in a different language.

    • kvndoom
    • 13 years ago

    Blah blah blah… show me the numbers of standalone copies sold, not what came bundled with computers.

      • Autonomous Gerbil
      • 13 years ago

      Yes, I would think the the higher percentage of computer owners (and replacers) would account for most of that increase since 2001. I personally don’t know anyone using Vista yet.

      • nagashi
      • 13 years ago

      Does that really matter? I have to think more than a few people look into upgrading to Vista, see that a full computer with vista is only $300-$400 more than the OS itself and opt for a full new computer. Lots of people were holding off on equipment purchases so that they could buy with vista preinstalled.

      It doesn’t really matter how MS got the sale. The point is, they got the sale.

        • Peffse
        • 13 years ago

        sales and adoption rate can be very different numbers…

          • nagashi
          • 13 years ago

          If the buyer of the new computer EOLs their old computer, it amounts to the exact same thing.

            • ManAtVista
            • 13 years ago

            These guys are sad, they are completely serious when they try to get everyone to believe MS sold 1 copy of Vista and has 39 million+ copies sitting on store shelves, basically, because they’re smart enough not to say how many copies of Vista are being used (what’s that mean anyway, this minute?) Too dumb for words. I read on the web that major web stat companies are reporting that Vista is the OS on 3% of computers that use their client web sites, if there are 1.2 Billion PCs in the world as is commonly reported, that comes out to 39 million+ copies of Vista.

        • kvndoom
        • 13 years ago

        Actually yes, it does kinda matter. See, if you shop around you can buy a whole computer with one particular version of Vista installed for less than what another particular version of Vista costs standalone at retail.

        I know the “forced adoption” comes with every OS release, which is why MS should just STFU and not bother bragging about it. Hell, they could release ME 2nd Edition and it would set records if people had no other choice of what came on their computers.

      • wierdo
      • 13 years ago

      PR games are always amusing, you can do so much with numbers 😛

      How many more people use PCs nowadays compared to when XP came out btw? The market grew too you know.

Pin It on Pinterest